Category Archives: VCAT

Mr Ian Quick, President of t Save Our Suburbs, has written to the Victorian State Government and the Victorian Electoral Commission seeking copies of the recorded ballot paper preferences used to tabulate the results of the election. For spacious reason unknown the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make this information available. The failure of the Electoral Commission to publish this information in association with the results of the election undermines public confidence in the conduct of Victoria’s elections.

With the introduction of electronic computer based counting systems access to this information is vital to maintaining an honest, open and transparent electoral system.

The City of Melbourne in 1999 and 2001 tried unsuccessfully to prevent the release of this information. The Melbourne City Council spent over $60,000, acting under the misguided direction of Alison Lyons, Melbourne City Council’s Governance Officer in attempt to deny open and transparent scrutiny of the conduct of the Council’s elections. This matter was the subject of a successful appeal to the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City fo Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

The ruling of the tribunal requiring the City of Mlebourne and the Australian Electoral Commisison to release this information was made without reservation and was a clear indication that specious the argument put forward by the City of Melbourne was lacking substance and merit.

Why has the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish this information?

The VEC’s argument has no legal or administrative basis. Copies of the ballot prefence data file should be readily aviailable to the public and should form part of the declartion of the results of the election.

This issue has been back and forth with the Victorian Electoral Commission on a number of occasions.

The need to provide open and transparent electoral procedures is important if public confidence in our electoral system is to be maintained. With the introduction of proportional representation in the election of the Legislative Council this issue needs to be resolved well before November State Election.

Mr Ian Quick, President of t Save Our Suburbs, has written to the Victorian State Government and the Victorian Electoral Commission seeking copies of the recorded ballot paper preferences used to tabulate the results of the election. For spacious reason unknown the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make this information available. The failure of the Electoral Commission to publish this information in association with the results of the election undermines public confidence in the conduct of Victoria’s elections.

With the introduction of electronic computer based counting systems access to this information is vital to maintaining an honest, open and transparent electoral system.

The City of Melbourne in 1999 and 2001 tried unsuccessfully to prevent the release of this information. The Melbourne City Council spent over $60,000, acting under the misguided direction of Alison Lyons, Melbourne City Council’s Governance Officer in attempt to deny open and transparent scrutiny of the conduct of the Council’s elections. This matter was the subject of a successful appeal to the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City fo Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

The ruling of the tribunal requiring the City of Mlebourne and the Australian Electoral Commisison to release this information was made without reservation and was a clear indication that specious the argument put forward by the City of Melbourne was lacking substance and merit.

Why has the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish this information?

The VEC’s argument has no legal or administrative basis. Copies of the ballot prefence data file should be readily aviailable to the public and should form part of the declartion of the results of the election.

This issue has been back and forth with the Victorian Electoral Commission on a number of occasions.

The need to provide open and transparent electoral procedures is important if public confidence in our electoral system is to be maintained. With the introduction of proportional representation in the election of the Legislative Council this issue needs to be resolved well before November State Election.

Mr Ian Quick, President of t Save Our Suburbs, has written to the Victorian State Government and the Victorian Electoral Commission seeking copies of the recorded ballot paper preferences used to tabulate the results of the election. For spacious reason unknown the Victorian Electoral Commission has refused to make this information available. The failure of the Electoral Commission to publish this information in association with the results of the election undermines public confidence in the conduct of Victoria’s elections.

With the introduction of electronic computer based counting systems access to this information is vital to maintaining an honest, open and transparent electoral system.

The City of Melbourne in 1999 and 2001 tried unsuccessfully to prevent the release of this information. The Melbourne City Council spent over $60,000, acting under the misguided direction of Alison Lyons, Melbourne City Council’s Governance Officer in attempt to deny open and transparent scrutiny of the conduct of the Council’s elections. This matter was the subject of a successful appeal to the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City fo Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

The ruling of the tribunal requiring the City of Mlebourne and the Australian Electoral Commisison to release this information was made without reservation and was a clear indication that specious the argument put forward by the City of Melbourne was lacking substance and merit.

Why has the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to publish this information?

The VEC’s argument has no legal or administrative basis. Copies of the ballot prefence data file should be readily aviailable to the public and should form part of the declartion of the results of the election.

This issue has been back and forth with the Victorian Electoral Commission on a number of occasions.

The need to provide open and transparent electoral procedures is important if public confidence in our electoral system is to be maintained. With the introduction of proportional representation in the election of the Legislative Council this issue needs to be resolved well before November State Election.

Rumour of fact – our sources in the Council Governance Department tells us;

Alison Lyon, Melbourne City Council’s Legal and Governance Officer is departing the City of Melbourne and taking up a position at the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Ms Lyon’s advice to the City of Melbourne was highly questionable as was her professional ethics.

She cost the City of Melbourne $100,000’s of dollars in highly questionable advice and on many occasions had generated concern about misuse of her office and possible breaches of the Local Government Act.

She was the officer responsible for spending over $60,000.00 of ratepayers money in seeking to withhold detailed election results.

The standard of Council administration under her management seriously declined. Many around the town hall had good cause to question her motives and the quality of her advice.

Ms Lyon was responsible for the management of the Council’s FoI section. It appears that the State Government may have been mislead by the City of Melbourne in relation to the Council’s non-performance of FoI with notable omissions to the number of decisions overturned on appeal by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Staff were often compromised (on at least one occasion members of staff came close to being charged with giving false evidence in court proceedings) as a result of her ill-considered unprofessional advice.

Rumour of fact – our sources in the Council Governance Department tells us;

Alison Lyon, Melbourne City Council’s Legal and Governance Officer is departing the City of Melbourne and taking up a position at the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Ms Lyon’s advice to the City of Melbourne was highly questionable as was her professional ethics.

She cost the City of Melbourne $100,000’s of dollars in highly questionable advice and on many occasions had generated concern about misuse of her office and possible breaches of the Local Government Act.

She was the officer responsible for spending over $60,000.00 of ratepayers money in seeking to withhold detailed election results.

The standard of Council administration under her management seriously declined. Many around the town hall had good cause to question her motives and the quality of her advice.

Ms Lyon was responsible for the management of the Council’s FoI section. It appears that the State Government may have been mislead by the City of Melbourne in relation to the Council’s non-performance of FoI with notable omissions to the number of decisions overturned on appeal by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Staff were often compromised (on at least one occasion members of staff came close to being charged with giving false evidence in court proceedings) as a result of her ill-considered unprofessional advice.

Rumour of fact – our sources in the Council Governance Department tells us;

Alison Lyon, Melbourne City Council’s Legal and Governance Officer is departing the City of Melbourne and taking up a position at the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Ms Lyon’s advice to the City of Melbourne was highly questionable as was her professional ethics.

She cost the City of Melbourne $100,000’s of dollars in highly questionable advice and on many occasions had generated concern about misuse of her office and possible breaches of the Local Government Act.

She was the officer responsible for spending over $60,000.00 of ratepayers money in seeking to withhold detailed election results.

The standard of Council administration under her management seriously declined. Many around the town hall had good cause to question her motives and the quality of her advice.

Ms Lyon was responsible for the management of the Council’s FoI section. It appears that the State Government may have been mislead by the City of Melbourne in relation to the Council’s non-performance of FoI with notable omissions to the number of decisions overturned on appeal by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Staff were often compromised (on at least one occasion members of staff came close to being charged with giving false evidence in court proceedings) as a result of her ill-considered unprofessional advice.